GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1125033/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1125033,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1125033/?format=api",
"text_counter": 190,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Kiminini, JP",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Chris Wamalwa",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady. I have been listening carefully to Hon. Nyikal's and his justifications for deletion of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are the same. I was wondering how that can be done when it comes to drafting so that you contextualize a clause even if they are referring to the issue of the authority. I am sure it can be in a different context because there is no way you can have similar justifications for Clauses 8, 9 and 10. If you go further, it might have been a different context but it was referring to the Authority so that you are able to differentiate. From his justification, it shows there was a repetition. Clauses 8, 9, and 10 were the same. Maybe they were referring to the same word, “Authority”, but contextualisation is obviously different. It should not give the impression that there was repetition of clauses 8, 9, and 10."
}